PDA

View Full Version : Why the G-6?



Metatron_123
02-10-2008, 07:48 AM
I'm a big Bf-109 fan, but one thing has been puzzling me recently: What was the point of producing so many Bf-109 G-6s? The conventional Bf-109 G-6 is definately a worse performer than the G-2.

It's often described as being very adaptable. But were the previous models not? Even the Bf-109 F-4 could be fitted with 20 mm gondolas etc. The only fundamental improvement I see is the 13 mm heavy machine guns, which produced the big lumps on the engine cover. Where they that necessary?

The Bf-109 G-6 late in particular served until 1945 when obviously outdated. The easier to fly Bf-109 G-2 would probably be more useful to pilots fighting to survive at this point.

The G-10, G-14/AS, G-6/AS, K-4 models of course were good performers and ironed out the faults of the basic G-6. But why so many conventional G-6s? I believe they were the Luftwaffe's basic 109 right up to and after the Normandy Invasion where it was obviously on a much lower level of performance than the P-51 B/C.

I'm considering the idea that the 13 mm machine guns were needed to boost firepower without need for the gondolas in the pure fighter role.

But I still have a hard time understanding how reducing performance was seen as a good compromise. Please discuss. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
02-10-2008, 07:53 AM
Performance of the G-6 wasn't much worse than the G-2's. There are substantial errors in FB with one being too light, the other too heavy. You already pointed out the benefits, and irl, they were worth it.

JG53Frankyboy
02-10-2008, 07:59 AM
i wonder till IL2 release why the difference between the G-2 and G-6 is so huge in game................

the MG131 were a real improvemnt in firepower over the MG17 - no doubt !

it seems the ingame G-6 is much heavier than the G-2 , also it looks like it has a different engine - as it is amlost as fast as the G-2 at sealevel, but than looses speed in comparison as higher it gets - speed difference at full throttle alt is ~35km/h.

the G-6 with the same poweroutput as the G-2 should realy be slower - more drag because of the MG131 bulges and the non retractable tailwheel. but should this speed difference not stay constant over the altitudes ??

and yes, the G-6 was heavier than the G-2 - but not that much.

so, actually , the flightperformance between those two were not so different - i belive qualitiy difference in series production were porpably more important http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


to ad, i dont say the G-2 is too good, the G-6 too bad - i just belive the huge difference between these two is not correct http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

but i cant actually remember how often this was talked about the last 6 years http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and now let the 20side flamefest begin - as alwasy when it is about 109s, 190s, Spits, and P-51s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Kurfurst__
02-10-2008, 08:19 AM
As noted above, the differences between the G-2 and G-6 are exaggrevated in the sim. Our G-2 is iirc 200 kg lighter than the real one, altough it matches the real ones performance perfectly, it feels much lighter. The G-6 is on the other hand some 80 kg heavier than the real one. The real life difference between the two was small - 3037 kg vs 3100 kg, but in the sim you will will the artificial, sudden 200 kg difference between the two.

The other factor is that we have an early G-2 with retractable tailwheel, while late ones had a fixed one, like the G-6, so the performance change was indeed very marginal, as the two - at the start of 1943 - only differed aerodynamically in the G-6 having the MG 131 bulges, but those didn`t knock down more than 9 km/h either - whereas individual serial production planes of the SAME subtype were of 10-20-30 km/h apart from each other in top speed..

As for real life, the G-6 was a logical development of the G-series. It was, basically, a G-4 with the MG 131s slammed onto it. And the G-4 was just a G-2 with a new FuG 16 VHF radio, with about triple the range than the FuG 7 on G-2. And what would you rather have as bulk on the aircraft - two obsolate 7.92mm MGs, which can only tickle armored aircraft, dead weight basically, or two 13mm HMGs that are actually effective penetrating armor and only add about 40 kg..?

The thing about the G-6 that it was not an improvement over the G-2 in performance, but it was in an improvement in every other field. Better communication. More stable ground handling. More effective weapons. At the time it was introduced in the spring of 1943, the bulky armor headplates were also disappearing and were replaced by the transparent Galland Panzer, restoring the rear visibility. And, whereas in 1942 the G-2 faces obsolate opposition, and you can basically run them all over, in 1943 the G-6 has stiffer opposition. Still, when you look at what it actually faced in the air most of the time it wasn`t all that bad. It was still faster than most of the opposition it faced on the Eastern front, and during 1943, it received a power boost when 1.42ata was cleared for the DB 605A. The early 1944 period was a tough one indeed, but two things should be considered. The new Allied types, that were coming into action didn`t spread into every Squadron overnight, and Mustangs were relatively rare until the summer; just like the new 109Gs that appeared at the same time - namely the G-6/AS and MW50 boost - took some time to arrive in numbers.

Metatron_123
02-10-2008, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

and now let the 20side flamefest begin - as alwasy when it is about 109s, 190s, Spits, and P-51s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I'm dreading that, and even if this is a drop in the ocean, i'd advise against flaming in my thread gentlemen. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

This is purely about the decision of adopting the G-6 as a primary fighter.

Not about kinderwurst eating nazis, ignorant,six shooter wielding cowboys, tea sipping pompous and opressive colonials, crude vodka drinking megalomaniac bolsheviks or fanatic impeial kamikaze/sakeholics.

There you have it, i've said it all for you, now let's get back to discussing the G-6. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Metatron_123
02-10-2008, 08:32 AM
Good post Kurfurst, I guess the performance differences were not so dramatic in RL. But it would still seem so when looking at official performance figures.

Was it not 660 kph vs 620 kph
as far as I can remember?

Xiolablu3
02-10-2008, 08:34 AM
Another thing about the G2- G6 performance is suddenly the opposition had got more potent, whereas the 109G2-G6 performance had at best stayed pretty much the same.

Now the Germans were not just fighting P40's, Hurricanes and Spitfire V's. In 1943 the Allies had brought in a whole new range of fighters in numbers, which at least equalled the 109G6, some surpassed it.

Spitfire IX, Mustang, Typhoon, La5, Yak9, P47,
etc etc.

All far more potent than the fighters they were facing in 1941-42.

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 08:49 AM
K, have you seen any reliable info about when the overall RLM76 scheme was introduced on the high cover 109G-6s and G-6/***?

This photo of Knoke's 109G-6 from March 1944 looks to me to be an overall 76 machine:

http://www.heinzknokewebsite.com/My-Site/Plane_50.htm#1

Note the white cross on the fuselage. Black would be the customary color. And, note the lack of gun pods which indicate these airplanes were intended for escort, not attacks on bombers.

Kurfurst__
02-10-2008, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Good post Kurfurst, I guess the performance differences were not so dramatic in RL. But it would still seem so when looking at official performance figures.

Was it not 660 kph vs 620 kph
as far as I can remember?

The offical specs were (at 1,3ata) 660 kph for the G-2. With the G-2/G-4 of early fixed tailwheel this should drop to about 640-645 km/h, the G-6 did 625-630 at the same rating. When the DB 605A received cleareance for 1,42ata manifold pressure, top speed again went up to 640 km/h, and more importantly, the power to weight ratio improved considerably over the G-2/1,3ata.. so yes, the downside was that overall performance remained practically the same while the opponents improved, but when you look at the typical opponents of the G-6 in 1943, it introduces a whole new layer to the picture, which is much brighter now, than if you only look at how the G-6 relates to the G-2.

But, the things to think about is that the spread in performance amongst serial production aircraft. There is a set of Erla trials of some 13 serial production G-2s/G-4s. The slowest one does around 630 km/h, the fastest some 667 km/h..

Granted the G-6 was a small step back in performance, but it was neccesarry because of other improvements, and it could be done without causing chaos on the production lines. G-2, G-4 production could just switch to G-6 and keep pumping out aircraft without delays, in the HUNDREDs per month. Quantity is a quality on its own, there is little point in creating a new variant, and then produce only a dozen of it every month because of engine, parts and airframe changeover and bottlenecks, if that only leads to most fighter units having to soldier on with aging airframes and obsolate models, and a few priviliged ones receiving a brand new model in tiny numbers. Quality of the single model is one thing, but the overall quality of your fighter force is another. You have to balance development and production for the best overll gain.

csThor
02-10-2008, 09:08 AM
Metatron - the 620kp/h figure for the G-6 comes form a british test of a Bf 109 G-6/R6 - meaning it was carrying two underwing gondolas.

Leitmotiv - That "RLM 76 overall" scheme seems to be centered on two units only - III./JG 1 with its Bf 109 G-6/AS and parts of JG 11 which heavily oversprayed the aircraft with RLM 76. Apparently there was never a "true" high-altitude scheme devised by the RLM so these schemes have to be regarded as modifications on unit level.

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 09:24 AM
That's certainly the way it looks, CST, but I am still restlessly searching for anecdotal or documentary evidence.

csThor
02-10-2008, 09:57 AM
Apparently for III./JG 1 the schemes seem to have appeared after their return from the Normandy.

Kurfurst__
02-10-2008, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Metatron - the 620kp/h figure for the G-6 comes form a british test of a Bf 109 G-6/R6 - meaning it was carrying two underwing gondolas.


Indeed, if you check this table - http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1.../109G_perftable.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109G1-6_datasheet/109G_perftable.html) - the 620 km/h figure is given for the G-6 with gondies. BTW its not G-6/R6, just G-6 even if it carries the gondolas - gondies were field kits, and did not show in the type designation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Metatron_123
02-10-2008, 11:15 AM
That's an excellent photo leitmotiv, unusual tall mast.

I'm reminded of Erik Brown's test flight of the Bf-109 G-6 where he assessed it as a good all round fighter, if not extremely competitive by 1944. I believe his 109 was carrying gondolas though.

leitmotiv
02-10-2008, 11:21 AM
I found it irresistible. I have a 1:32 Hasegawa 109G-6 destined to be this airplane, and a 1:32 Hase G-10 which will be converted into a G-6/AS!